in texas but we can tax you for speeding and give you unbelievable fines flu those penalties. natalie plumber we love. let her go! let her go! have a great weekend. [ ♪ theme music ♪ ] >> john: good evening tonight a detailed report on the break up of tom cruise and katie holmes' marriage will be broadcast on a different news channel right about now. but i'm john fugelsang sitting in for governor eliot spitzer and you're watching "viewpoint" on current tv. congratulations. recommendation seem confident they can spin the supreme court decision upholding the affordable care act. >> telling that a victory for the obama administration means a middle class tax increase. that's exactly what this is. >> john: expect it's not. david axelrod the nice man who sends you all those e-mails that

you don't read, he doesn't agree with senator rubio. >> whatever you call it, whether you call it a mandate or a tax what it is is a penalty on the very few americans who don't--who can afford healthcare end up in our emergency rooms get free care and we pay for it. >> john: despite that, g.o.p. leaders say they're ready to run on what they love to call obama-care. >> the obama-care law now having been sanctioned by the court is essentially sets up a big choice for the american people in november. >> john: and canter may have a point. 41% of adults thought the affordable care act was a bad idea compared to 35% who liked it although that gap may be closing. a gallup poll taken thursday shows an even split on the supreme court's decision to up hold the president's plan.

no word on what pre-teens think. >> because he said it was fair to make sure there weren't free riders driving up everybody's insurance rates. >> john: he really didn't say that did he? yeah, did he. in a 2008 "abc news" debate. >> if people can afford to buy t either buy the insurance or pay your own way don't be free riders and pass on the cost of your healthcare to everybody else. >> john: so it's not a tax when i do it. and while mr. romney seems split between what he said and what he says now many republicans seem just as divided over chief justice john roberts' role in up holding the healthcare plan. sarah palin weighed in on fox news. >> i received a lot of message abouts this one today and a lot of e-mails and texts used the word "treachery" in the messages.

i tend to agree with that term used to describe what happened today. >> john: why didn't she run. glenn beck preferred the word coward on his online store. they turned that around pretty sick. while brian fisher and certain radio hosts thought roberts decision made have been influenced by his medication. fisher tweeted roberts epilepsy medicines side effects include mental slowing and forgetfulness. for more on the healthcare debate we're joined by the person who probably knows more about this than anybody else, because he helped device it, both governor romney and president obama's plan professor grubert. how today. >> good, good to be here. >> john: what was your response

when the supreme court decision was announced. >> it was an enormous relief. my 15-year-old's son put it best. when your favorite baseball team wins it in a walk-off inning. you're happy but relieved. >> john: i think we have a mets fan and a red sox fan agreeing on this. how important is the individual mandate to the healthcare plan's overall success in your opinion. >> i think it's very central to the success of the healthcare plan. it depends heavily on the mandates so individuals can no longer be discriminated against by sures. there are other parts such as reforms to the healthcare system and expansions and healthcare spending. it would have been tragic if the whole law was thrown out which it sounds like it was very close to have happening. >> john: indeed. is the individual mandate held up by the court really a tax?

>> the individual mandate is a system where either you have health insurance or you're penalized for not having it. you can call it whatever you want but it's a penalty you pay for not having health insurance. it's exactly what romney described it as, a free rider. if you get sick you're going to go to the emergency room and get care and the rest of us pay those costs. that's what the mandate does. >> john: it really is a fine or penalty. it's not a tax. if anything it's a tax on freeloaders but it won't effect most americans correct? >> no, in massachusetts this past year--the key thing we've run the experiment. we've seen what happens. in massachusetts past year we had 44,000 out of a population of 6 million pay the penalty less than 1% of the population made a penalty. >> john: you know what governor romney is saying about that, it can be sustained on a state level but not on a federal

level. is there any reason why he's right or is this what some call flip flopping. >> this is complete disingenuous disingenuousness on two levels. he never says why it wouldn't work nationally. it would. he said the states should do it, but the reason why we were able to do this in massachusetts is because the federal government gave us a huge chunk of money to pay for half of the cost of the bill. if he says that the federal government is going to do the same for other states? otherwise, the other states can't do that without the chunk of money. the affordable care act president obama made is clear it would be deficit reducing. and it is. according to the budget office, the affordable care act reduces the deficit by $100 billion over the next decades. it does that half through tax increases and half in reductions of medical overspending. >> john: this is on the wealthy

with a little bit of tax increase on tanning beds? >> the tax increase is from two sources. one is on the wealthiest americans, those with incomes over $250,000. and the other is the benefits of having new customers there will an huge win from this law. there will see all these new customers with new demands for product. they say you have to kickback some of the win to help fund the law. >> john: it benefits the corporations. >> there is nothing socialist about it. it's a government injection of funds into a private market. conventionally theessentially the way to think of it we're injecting funds that will help in this amount and we would like a kickback on it. >> john: and there is a tax on tanning beds. that's why john boehner is so angry. >> yes. >> john: how similar are they, is there any daylight in between

the approaches? >> not really. the affordable care act is a more ambitious version of governor romney's plan. they have the same three-legged stool. reform insurance markets have an individual mandate so everyone participants, and have subsidyies to make it available. that's the core of what we did in massachusetts. that's the occur of the affordable care act. the essence in the affordable care act a, they have to pay for it, and b it takes on cost controls which we did not do in massachusetts with our law. >> john: wow mit jonathan grubert. thank you for your time and expertise on the matter. >> happy to be here. >> john: now for more on the politics of the healthcare decision and its likely impact in november, i'm joined by democratic strategy bahsills southland michael and michael mislanski.

you saw professor grubert. does--let me go to you first michael. is mitt romney going to run against the mandate or is he hoping this goes away and he'll focus on the economy again. >> i think it will become part of the strategy. if he tries to run all on obama-care it's a mistake. i think they'll argue the tax side of the argument. this points out how important a word is. it's all about a word. if this were put in this position to begin with, it never would have passed. if it looks like a tax, if it acts like a tax, it's a tax. at a minimum, to be intellectually honest, not to say that the candidates are, but it's a tax and it will effect a lot of people in the middle class and lower middle class who

are struggling and they've got a lot of challenges financially. then all of a sudden they've made a conscious choice not to pay for healthcare, they'll have to spend money on healthcare. that's a tax to them, and i think it's something that is important to bring on as part of the campaign. >> i agree if the white house had called it a tax they would have lost big time. but roberts is the one who used the word tax and they'll take that while hating him for the rest of their lives. bahsill, it's a not a tax. it's a penalty fine. it's a lay-about penalty. it's just punishing those who don't pull themselves up by their bootstraps. >> as you said it's a free rider penalty. and i will have to agree with him. >> john: the whole thing is nuts. >> i'll say that i think the way romney makes this a good issue for him is if he focuses on the tax.

i'm a small business owner. and i have to make a determination whether or not this penalty is going to be something that i'm going to deal with over paying for health insurances as sole proprietyier, that's a tremendous amount of money for a business that is operating on the margins especially if you have to hire other employees. so i--it is a penalty. it is a free rider penalty. and it's going to come down to how this is spun by both parties, quite frankly. >> john: indeed, i think you're right. let me go back to you michael. is mitt romney exactly the wrong guy to be making a case against this sort of plan? >> it would be better if he weren't involved with romney care and then now being the critic. but i think there is a big space between obama-care and what it was designed to solve and romney care and it was designed to solve. one was a state issue. it was done at the state level and which can debate this all we

want but there are some things better done at the state level that are not appropriate or palatable at the federal level. this watts good for my state. it was the right state for my state. it's not what i would do now. it's a difference of what i would do today. >> i think states rights is the only way out of this trap. >> i do think that states rights will be very very important because what republicans are really good at doing is doing the state by state campaign. it will go into the state by state campaign hammering this issue home. i don't think they'll raise it to a national level because it will be difficult for them to win because there is actually a victim for the president. state by state i think they're going to be running these campaigns in targeted way and talking about this tax issue. i will say going back to not working or the conversation on a national level, newt gringrich did talk about the individual mandate. he talked about it during the

clinton administration when hillary clinton was spearheading health reform. this has been talked about as a viable option by republicans. >> that's why i think you focus--mitt romney never should utter the word mandate again. it should be called a tax. >> if it was a tax what was it in his state? >> it doesn't matter. >> it was a tax. >> cenk: and it was a tax that effects less than 1% of households in massachusetts. >> and you could say that it will effect only 1%-- >> john: the liberals will be saying that. >> the bottom line if you tax 1% here and 1% here and anybody who wants to use a tanning bed here-- >> why are you taxing a tanning get? >> john: getting back at john boehner. >> it is about a philosophy that says we're going tax rand and now it's more dangerous. it's about hidden taxes and

taxing you and not telling you where else should be looking for-- >> 500 billion he pulled out of his mormon underwear. yes, guaranteeing the courts are not going to be called activists in the history books and secured his place in history as a moderate figure. he was wise enough to employ the word tax and said i hate this law but i'm forced to vote for it. will that help him to save face at all for the conservative who is suddenly despise himfer rochely. >> there are some liberals who don't like it and they would like the states do more to support poor people, the states are not mandated to do that. there is that concern. conservatives may be--may not be happy, but there are a lot of liberal who is are not happy either. i think roberts does save face a little bit but the reality is that down the line he's probably going to have to make a decision

that is going to be falling on the side of conservatively at some point in time. >> john: and i he will. >> and he's not getting celebrated by liberals right now. >> it's brilliant a well reasoned opinion. it actually makes sense. what it does is give obama political victory. excuse me, a presidential victory. whether it's a political victory or liability the way it motivates the baits of the rain party, remains to be seen. >> john: i invite you both back on governor spitzer's show. thank you for coming to the program. >>it's the place where democracy is supposed to be the great equalizer, where your vote is worth just as much as donald trump's.

we must save the country. it starts with you. [ male announcer ] don't miss red lobster's four course seafood feast, just $14.99. start with soup, salad and cheddar bay biscuits then choose one of 7 entrees plus dessert! four perfect courses just $14.99. come into red lobster and sea food differently. with lysol kitchen soap hands are healthy. with lysol kitchen soap, washing dishes is easy. with lysol kitchen soap

surfaces are clean. hands. dishes. surfaces. the lysol no-touch kitchen system: the only all-in-one kitchen soap. try it for yourself. lysol. mission for health.

>> john: only barack obama can prevent wildfires. that's what right wing belonger and america's sweetheart michelle malkin would have you believe. ms. malkin tries to blame the colorado wildfires on the president because she says the u.s. forest service does not have enough of those expensive taxpayer funded firefighting planes. that brings us the number today, three, the number that ms. malkin leaves out of her facts. fact one the firefighting planes are heavy air tankers. there's a reason why we don't have a lot of them because they

don't put out fires. according to the denver post they drop retardant toss keep small flames from spreading. theyfact two, the controversy over the plane shortage has been going on for ten years. that means it's must mostly under the administration of. [ mumbling ] and then how white house ecoradicals would wreak vengeance. fact three the forest service contracts with private companies and does not actually own aircraft. her bought line here is that obama has not spent enough. colorado governor john hickenlooper sums it up best saying, are these the same conservatives worried that obama administration was spending too much money or were these different conservatives.

ms. malkin herself lives in colorado springs and had to be evacuated. we hope that her loved once escaped any devastation. but remember only you can prevent hypocrite right wing hacks. for elon musk what could possibly be next? watch "the gavin newsom show." >> john: as we reported earlier in the week, barclays bank reached a settlement with u.s. and british agencies to pay $453 million after submitting false data in setting special interest rates. it's pennies for a bank that makes 10s of millions of dollars every year. what they did on the surface seems indefensible. yet bob diamond is trying to

defend it. in a letter released by britain's house of commons mr. diamond writes, quote, even taking account of the abnormal market conditions at the height of the financial crisis and that the motivation was to protect the banks not to influence the ultimate rate, i accept that the decision to lower submissions was wrong. it sound more condescending with a british accent. what are you saying, you only lied to protect your company's bottom line? this is totally going to ruin my opinion of lawless unregulated meg da banks and this is not the end of the story. it may just be the story of something very long and ugly. it's report that the several other banks have played the same rate-fixing game the next domino likely to fall most likely will be the royal bank of scotland which is expected to be find $233 million foreits role in the

rigging scandal. george zornick. thank you for joining us. i know you came to talk about the tom cruise and katie holmes divorce. is this too dense for the average american to make sense of? >> i think it's both. you have the cruise/holmes brake up but then you have the supreme court decision and the supreme court decision in arizona. this is very complicated. a majority of people who have come in contact with the story for the first time and i'll include myself we're not sure what it was and how it was being manipulated. it's not the thing that arises righteous populous anger. >> john: but when go to buy a house or a car and you have the interest rate, you wonder how do they come up with that? they just make it up. >> and he's not wrong.

they're acting in their own interest. and it's to their interest to do this. but the question is should they be allowed to do this? and should it be the punishment be stronger than the slap of the wrist that we've seen so far. >> john: this really is a slap on the wrist for barclays and the penalty on scotland, any fines are going to be largely paid by the shareholders, the government and the citizens. how do these people get held accountable? are there ever going to be crimal charges for any of this. >> you see the unwillingness of going and the big banks. the big financial institutions have virtually unlimited money. they can battle the cases with huge armies of lawyers that would make the o.j. simpson defense team look minuscule. they'll drain it, and then the

government said listen, you promise never to do it again and we'll make this go away. >> john: jpmorgan's recent losses could be close to $9 billion, yet we see jamie dinon still the ceo and sits on the federal reserve bank in new york. andare these wall street executives just protecting themselves like when we make oil companies responsible for monitoring their own pollution? >> yes exactly. that's been the banks' argument all along when it comes to the volcker rule to keep them from acting like a hedge fund and engaging in a risky trade. they say the regulators would never understand it, just let us handle it. we won't lose the money. we will manage it accordingly. it shows that they will lose

money. they can't manage the risk and perhaps the government should step in. >> john: that brings us to glass-steagall. they're calling for the separation of retail banking from investment banking which is the idea behind the glass-steagall of 1933. it's the one thing i would like all americans to know about and understand when we repealed glass-steagall investment banks became casinos and mortgages became things to be bet on and it doesn't matter if they're failed or not they make money either way. is there any way to get americans to wakes up and understand this one sliver of a concept. >> the volcker rule contains much of the spirit of the glass-steagall act which is big institutions cannot be gambling and making risky trades. i think what a lot of people release we're bankly on the five yard line of getting this done.

it has advised the legislative process in 2010 probably against all odds. the volcker rule is law, it's just how strongly will it be written. as these scandals pile up and people push at the final way towards a strong rule that will keep banks like jpmorgan from making risky trades. >> john: franklin roosevelt in 1933, was he right, is there any hope? >> he is right but it doesn't mean that they can never loose. it was extremely unlikely and i was pessimistic that the volcker rule would ever make it into law but it did, it passed through this terrible legislation in washington, and yet it passed. now what the banks have to their advantage is that the rule is being written behind closed doors. the more that people focus and pay attention to what is going on, i think there is a good

chance for a positive outcome. >> john: george zornick. occupy this man's column. do yourself a favor. >> thanks, john. >> john: you remember the two minutes when we thought the affordable mandate was struck down? we have historical congressional reaction you don't want to miss. >>it's the place where democracy is supposed to be the great equalizer, where your vote is worth just as much as donald trump's. we must save the country. it starts with you.

innovation matters now more than ever.

if you have copd like i do you know how hard it can be to breathe and what that feels like. copd includes chronic bronchitis and emphysema. spiriva helps control my copd symptoms by keeping my airways open a full 24 hours. plus, it reduces copd flare-ups. spiriva is the only once-daily inhaled copd maintenance treatment that does both. and it's steroid-free. spiriva does not replace fast-acting inhalers for sudden symptoms. tell your doctor if you have kidney problems glaucoma, trouble urinating, or an enlarged prostate. these may worsen with spiriva. discuss all medicines you take, even eye drops. stop taking spiriva and seek immediate medical help if your breathing suddenly worsens your throat or tongue swells you get hives, vision changes or eye pain, or problems passing urine.

other side effects include dry mouth and constipation. nothing can reverse copd. spiriva helps me breathe better. does breathing with copd weigh you down? ask your doctor if spiriva can help. >> john: up next right wing christianityty meets the modern tea party because it's always so beautiful when the right oxy oxymorons find each other.

but first her man cain on the constitution, sarah palin on america, and me on the streets a couple of blocks from here. when it doesn't fit anywhere else friends we put it in the viewfinder. >> do you have anable on what is called obama-care? >> i really don't know too much about it. >> yes, i don't know that much about it. >> i keep meaning to read it. >> i love the constitution as much as i love the united states of america. >> who would win in a fight between the constitution and the bible? >> hands down, the bible. [ screaming ] [ . >> you'll have to pay a tax for

something you don't do. if you don't buy it, you have to today a tax. what is this, russia? >> if obama is re-elected, well, america, you will no longer recognize the country that today you truly love. >> obama: finally, it would be incomplete if i did not congratulate the city of miami for having the world champion miami heat. >> reports coming in that nicholas cage has broken into the national archives and has stolen the constitution of the united states. look into that camera and convince nicholas cage to give that constitution back. [laughter] >> nicholas, bring back our constitution. >> he's a princess. >> he's evil-liscious. >> who do you have here? >> i have floppy here. he's calmer. >> oh! >> he didn't have the

constitution--no, he didn't have it. um, so you now have to address nicholas cage fans all over the world and explain to them why you killed their favorite actor. three, two one--go. >> my bad. >> john: if you would like to see congresswoman jean schmidt be wrong about more things, tune into c-span any day of the week. tea-evangelicals. what is only a matter of time before these two fell in love. that's coming up next. for elon musk what could possibly be next? watch "the gavin newsom show."

>> john: so the other night i said to myself, self, what happened to the tea party? they were all the range in 2010. they were nominating candidates

holding rallies holding republicans feet to the fire and holding elections. then they held less rallies and began to drop from public view. well, our next guest sees a revitalization coming in 2012 by joining forces with evangelical christians. joining me now is david brody chief political correspondent for the christian broadcasting network and author of the new book" the tea evangelicals: the inside story of how the evangelicals and the tea party are taking back the america." welcome. >> thank you. good to go here. i'm my first question is why would evangelical christians join with the tea parties. one is focused on social issues and the other is focused on taxes. >> that's a good question, and the evangelicals don't want to co-op the issues.

are there pockets of folks who are going crazy with the social issues trying to get into the tea party, sure, over there. no john, it isn't really a co-op situation at all. the tea evangelicals as i call them in my book, they want to return to judeo christian principles. they want constitutionally limited government, which is what the libertarians say but from a biblical world-view the evangelicals see it as a return to judeo christian principles. >> john: when we look at limited government we see the tea party who are fighting for lower taxes for higher wage earners. this confuses me from the christian point of view. it seems like a lot of verbal evangelicals want to help the poor by cutting programs for the poor and making those who are comfortable that much more comfortable. >> it's a great point of

discussion. there is a debate, in essence a proxy war going on between progressive evangelicals and conservative evangelicals and modern evangelicals in the middle about what you said. everybody has their different interpretation of what would jesus do? in this case the evangelicals are saying we want a return to fiscal responsibility. they will pull out the verses and proverbs about a good person leaves an inheritance to their children's children. and i can go on and on. the truth is according to conservative evangelicals a strong family means lower taxes because if you have lower taxes you have more money to spend on guess who, your family. i understand the other point of view. it's progressive evangelical point of view and i've covered that view as well. but for the sake of this book, the evangelicals and what they're doing that's the argument. >> i understand, although this is proverbs that leave wealth to your children when jesus was

anti-family and anti-wealth when you look at the gospels. i wonder why they would hitch their wagon to the g.o.p. when they haven't had a balanced budget since nixon and they haven't had a you surplus since eisenhower. >> i can tell you that i've been at plenty of tea party rallies. i guarantee you, they will all have something negative to say about the republican party. this is not as much about the republican party as we have to hitch our wagon to something and the g.o.p.es are the closest out there but they don't like the republicans don't get me wrong. >> john: i know there are a lot of christians who are progressives who have a hard time as well. it isn't the money. the g.o.p. talks a good game about cutting taxes. but when jesus said render unto caesar, wasn't he saying pay

your taxes and stop complaining. >> he was saying pay your taxes for sure but it goes beyond that as i talk about the tax issues. that's one of the issues that i bring up with the evangelicals. look ultimately what this is about for the tea evangelicals, they believe that government is getting way too big just like the libertarians believe. and this is the evangelical part, and god is getting too small in the public arena. they're talking about within the public arena. they believe government is too big. god is too small enough is enough. obama-care is a good example of this. this is a big-time issue for evangelicals well. >> i understand that they're not a big fan of separation of church and state however are they going for theocracy when they say god is too small what do you mean by that? >> this idea that the christians are out to make this a christian nation, let's get back to the word pocket. are there pockets of those

people around in the country? sure there are, just like there are those who are way to the left as well. but over all this is not especially the tea party movement, this is not about returning the country to a christian nation but to a judeo christian structure which our founding fathers felt very strongly. is it up for debate? sure but one of the challenges for evangelicals is to win the argument in the court of public opinion. look john, i'm honest about this. there are a lot of challenges involved and i try to tackle them. >> john: absolutely. i get confused. jesus never mentioned gay people or abortion but talked about taking care of the poor. they feel like they don't want to do that at the ballot box. >> i got to tell you one of the things that i mentioned and it has to do with paul ryan's budget. that's a whole other show, i'm sure paul ryan's budget. but there is a belief that that is not an immoral document which

we've heard talk in liberal circles, but a moral document because at least according to paul ryan and the systems it's i will moral to make sure people know that a train is about to hit you and we're not going to do anything about it. look, if the train is going to hit you it's morally the right thing to do. hey, something needs to be done and something needs to be done now. that's the right and moral thing according to the evangelicals. >> john: right. the book is "tea evangelicals" it's on book shelves now. david brody, thank you for coming on. i could talk about this all night. >> and i want you to know that the tea evangelicals is not a musical like the book of mormon. >> john: no, and we'll have country singer shelly wright coming up. that's on "viewpoint" coming up. where your vote is worth just as much as donald trump's.

we must save the country. it starts with you.

>> john: the texas g.o.p. wants to ban critical thinking. literally. don't question me on this. they've said it out loud. that's ahead. but first g.o.p. governors are blowing a lot of hot air. they vow to prevent implementation of healthcare but in the end they'll phase in healthcare reform because of all the money they'll be getting from the federal government. we have governor granholm coming at the top of the hour. for elon musk what could possibly be next? watch "the gavin newsom show."

rrenttv